>>>>> "Alaric" == Alaric Snell-Pym <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alaric> On 17 Apr 2008, at 12:58 pm, Alex Shinn wrote:
>>
>> could fail if the (var val) ... list were passed as a
>> syntax object. Though probably this would never
>> happen in practice.
Alaric> When *will* it happen in practice?
You could force it whenever you want with
make-syntactic-closure. I think in this case it's only
likely to come about as part of a higher order macro that
closes individual parts all the time for safety.
Actually, I think if you always use the ER- transformer then
you never get anything other than symbols wrapped as
syntactic closures, so there would be no problems with
destructuring.
Alaric> Can we not write a define-record as a macro on
Alaric> top of define-record- type? I've not used
Alaric> define-record-type much (it seems a bit
Alaric> overcomplex) so I'm not sure if there's some
Alaric> fundamental incompatability...
Sure, as I said, I was just doing that for portability.
--
Alex
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
